Standardization vs diversity: How can we push peer review research forward?

MedGenMed Medscape General Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2005, Pages

  Shashok, Karen ^a  

^a NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOLOGY; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; EDUCATION; ETHNOLOGY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; LINGUISTICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT REFERRAL; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; READING; SOCIOLOGY; STANDARD; WRITING; HUMAN;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 25144444064     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Overbeke J, Wager E. The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books; 2003: 45-61.
2. Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane Library Issue 1, Oxford, United Kingdom: Update Software; 2003.
3. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books; 2003:1-13.
4. Martin DK, Lavery JV, Singer PA. Qualitative research on end-of-life care: unrealized potential. In: van der Heide A, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Emanuel EJ, van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, eds. In: Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects of End-of-Life Decision-Making: Proceedings of the Colloquium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7-9 October 1999. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2001:77-87.
5. Sacket DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question (editorial). BMJ. 1997;315:1636. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/contents/full/315/7123/1636 Accessed October 27, 2004.
6. Bernard HR. Publishing social sciences. Balancing qualitative and quantitative in a social science journal. In: The 12th International Conference for Science Editors (IFSE-12). Future trends in science editing and publishing. Bringing science to society; October 10-14, 2004; Merida, Mexico. p. 20.
7. Singleton A. Data protection and peer review. Learned Publishing. 2004;17:195-198.
8. Svetlov V. The real dirty secret of academic publishing (correspondence). Nature. 2004;431:897.
9. Burrough-Boenisch J. Culture and conventions: writing and reading Dutch scientific English. Utrecht (The Netherlands): LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (dissertation no. 59). 2002. Available at: www.lotpublications.nl/publish/issues/Burrough/index.html Accessed February 2, 2005.
10. Burrough-Boenisch J. A bit of culture. The Write Stuff. 2004;13:41-42.
11. Burrough-Boenisch J. NS and NNS scientists' amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English Specific Purposes. 2005;24:35-39. Available at: http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0889490603000632 Accessed November 8, 2003.
12. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012. Available at: www.consort-statement.org/MOOSE.pdf Accessed November 7, 2004.
13. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-694.